Learning
Does mixed physics homework improve later problem-solving?
Open access · CC BY 4.0 · source: Europe PMC
Interleaved physics homework improved surprise-test performance despite feeling harder, but the study did not find significant gains on the subsequent high-stakes midterms.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Newly covered practice-schedule studies show better delayed vocabulary recall after distributed sessions, better transfer after retrieval with feedback than plain rereading, and benefits of mixed physics homework on surprise tests. Their comparisons and outcomes differ, so they do not justify a single universal learning gain.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Better surprise-test performance did not establish better midterm grades.
Counterbalanced physics homework interleaving improved formula recall and problem-solving on surprise tests in both course stages. Subsequent high-stakes midterms did not show significant differences between conditions.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Physics problem-solving favoured interleaving on surprise tests, whereas novice ECG interpretation favoured blocked practice. Different learners, tasks, instruction and delays mean these are scope differences rather than conflicting replications of one experiment.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
The object-colour benefits came from final tests within a single session, whereas classroom studies assessed learning after longer delays. These outcome windows cannot be treated as interchangeable.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Physics problem-solving favoured interleaving on surprise tests, whereas novice ECG interpretation favoured blocked practice. Different learners, tasks, instruction and delays mean these are scope differences rather than conflicting replications of one experiment.
The object-colour benefits came from final tests within a single session, whereas classroom studies assessed learning after longer delays. These outcome windows cannot be treated as interchangeable.
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as supporting evidence on Learning
Newly covered practice-schedule studies show better delayed vocabulary recall after distributed sessions, better transfer after retrieval with feedback than plain rereading, and benefits of mixed physics homework on surprise tests. Their comparisons and outcomes differ, so they do not justify a single universal learning gain.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Counterbalanced classroom intervention across two self-selected lecture sections
- N
- N=290 · 350 enrolled; 290 analysed in Stage 1 and 286 in Stage 2
- Population
- Undergraduate life-sciences students in introductory physics at UCLA
- Outcome
- Surprise-test formula recall and problem-solving; secondary midterm examination scores
- Comparison
- Interleaved versus blocked homework; sections switched schedules between stages
- Test delay
- Surprise tests in weeks 4 and 8; topic lags at least 1–3 weeks; midterms 3 days later
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Does mixed physics homework improve later problem-solving?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Who participated and how large was the analysed sample?
Participants were 350 undergraduate students enrolled in either of two back-to-back lecture sections of Physics 5 C (“Physics for Life Sciences Majors: Electricity, Magnetism, and Modern Physics”) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in Winter 2020, which began on 6 January 2020 and ended on 20 March 2020.
What was the main finding?
Interleaving yielded higher criterial test scores than blocking in Stage 1, d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.17, 0.65], t(288) = 3.41, p = 0.0008, and in Stage 2, d = 0.91, 95% CI [0.66, 1.20], t(284) = 7.68, p < 0.0001.
Key findings
Interleaving improved surprise-test scores in both stages, with effect sizes d = 0.40 and d = 0.91. Students more often recalled relevant formulas and produced fully correct answers, although the benefit was stronger for formula recall than exact solutions. Interleaved homework felt harder and yielded poorer homework performance. Scores on the high-stakes midterms three days later did not differ significantly between practice conditions.
Methodology
Two introductory university physics lecture sections used counterbalanced practice schedules over eight weeks. One section received blocked practice then interleaved practice; the other received the reverse. The analysis included 290 students in the first stage and 286 in the second, from 350 enrolled. Homework mixed topics or kept related problems together. Surprise tests at weeks four and eight required relevant formulas and solutions to novel problems.
Limitations
Students chose lecture sections rather than being individually randomised. Interleaving also spaced topics and gave more recent practice for some material, so the mechanism is not isolated. The relevant surprise-test lags were at least one to three weeks, not a single identical delay. Later cramming and the surprise test itself may have reduced differences on midterms. The study does not establish that interleaving universally raises exam grades.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- Does choosing when to watch yourself help you learn a skill?
- Do we form habits from repetition or just our last action?
- Do food cues trigger actions more in obese than healthy-weight people?
- How do learning progress and novelty drive human curiosity?
- How does stress affect how we learn about safety and danger?